See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323396576

Social Semiotics and Visual Grammar: A Contemporary Approach to Visual

Text Research

Article · April 2017

DOI: 10.24821/ijcas.v1i1.1574

CITATIONS READS

0 41

1 author:

Indro Moerdisuroso
Jakarta State University
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Indro Moerdisuroso on 13 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IJCAS: Vol. 1, Number 1 June 2014

Social Semiotics and Visual

Grammar: A Contemporary
Approach to Visual Text Research
Indro Moerdisuroso
Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jalan Rawamangun Muka,
Jakarta 13220, Indonesia. Email: indro@unj.ac.id; indromp@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
This article outlines a visual text reading based on social semiotics approach,
that is the visual grammar. It is an account of the explicit and implicit
knowledge and practices around a resource, consisting of the elements and
rules underlying a culture-specific form of visual communication. It required a
general comprehension of social semiotics to obtain a deeply understanding to
visual grammar. The differences between social semiotics and general
semiotics expressed to accomplish its purpose. The concern of visual grammar
is the relationship between ‘drawn participants’ and social life. Visual grammar
can be positioned as a contemporary approach to visual texts meaning-making.
Study of visual arts seems to entail visual grammar to play a more important
role amid the phenomenon of visual culture that increasingly characterizes the
lives of today's society.
Keywords:Semiotic resources, visual texts, ‘drawn participants’, narrative represen-
tational structure, transactional action, social meanings.

INTRODUCTION
Contribution of this paper to art studies is expected to widen horizon of ‘meaning
production’, mainly in social semiotics perspective. Specifically it is expected to be
useful in analysing visual texts in today's contemporary life. This paper aims to
indicate the social semiotics as one point of view of art research, which has different
meaning from general semiotics, and to present the structure of visual reading as one
of the social semiotic analysis models. Therefore, Social semiotics of Hodge and Kress
(1988) and Reading images, the grammar of visual design of Kress and van Leeuwen
(2006) are exposed as the main references.

Issues in this paper are the role of visual texts in social semiotics context and ways to
analyse it using visual grammar model. Exposure begins with historical background
and further presents the definition of social semiotics and its differences to general
semiotics. It also examines the key elements and principles of analysis. Visual
grammar is positioned as a model of social semiotic analysis.

80
 Indro Moerdisuroso. Social Semiotics and Visual Grammar

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Social semiotics
The term of semiotics is derived from a Latin word semio, absorption of the Greek
semeion, which means a sign or signal. This term refers to an ancient use in
medicines; a diagnosis act named semeiosis process. Late in 17th century John Locke
proposed the term of semiotics into the branch of philosophy which means the
doctrine of signs. At the end of the 19th century until early in 20th century was the
beginning period of modern semiotics marked by the birth of two main ideas:
Semiotics by Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) in America, and semiology by
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) in France. Pierce's idea of semiotics based on
philosophical fields and forms a triadic structure, such as all nature phenomena
(representamen) that known as a sign (object) which determines a cognitive effect
upon a person (interpretant). Saussure's idea of semiology is based on linguistics
fields and builds a diadic structure. These are the general systems or rules of the
signs to express ideas (langue) and to show how people use the system of the signs in
particular group (parole). In the following periods, this Saussurean concept in
linguistics domain is developed into non-linguistics communication domain.
At least, three schools of semiotics have applied ideas from the domain of linguistics
to non-linguistic modes of communication. The first was Prague School in the 1930s
and early 1940s, which developes the work of Russian Formalists by providing it
with a linguistic basis. Notions such as ‘foregrounding’ were applied to language as
well as to the study of art (Mukarovsky, Honzl, Jakobson, and Bogatyrev). The
second was Paris School in the 1960s and 1970s, which applies ideas from de
Saussure and other linguists to painting, photography, fashion, cinema, and music
(Schefer, Barthes, Lindekens, Metz, Nattiez). The third was late in 1980s that
marked by developing Halliday's systemic-functional linguistics, by a number of
scholars in Australia (Threadgold, Thibault, O’Toole, Kress, van Leeuwen).
In Semiotics Encyclopedia, social semiotics refers to two different entities but related
to each other: firstly, 'social semiotics' without capital letters is broadly oriented
semiotics. It is heterogeneous and encompasses many disciplines related to the social
dimension of meanings, both in communication media, production, interpretation and
circulation, as well as in their implications in the social process as cause and effect;
Secondly, 'Social Semiotics' with capital letters is the school of linguistics and
semiotics which specifically addresses the social aspects (Hodge, www. semioticon.
com/seo/S/ social_ semiotics.html)
Halliday (1978) has introduced the term of social semiotics (as cited in Hjorland,
Birger and Nicolaisen, 2007, p. 1) as follows:
"By their everyday acts of meaning, people act out the social structure, affirming their own
statuses and roles, and establishing and transmitting the shared systems of value and of
knowledge. [...] We have to proceed from the outside inwards, interpreting language by
reference to its place in the social process. This is not the same thing as taking an isolated
sentence and planting it out in some hothouse that we call a social context. It involves the
difficult task of focusing attention simultaneously on the actual and the potential meanings,
interpreting both discourse and the linguistic system that lies behind it in terms of the infinitely
complex network of meaning potential that is what we call the culture."

81
IJCAS: Vol. 1, Number 1 June 2014

Ten years later Hodge and Kress systemized this Halliday’s term into Social
Semiotics. The ideas was based on Marx that human real consciousness could never
be anything other than ideology. They interpreted Marx’s point as the involvement of
each individual in the exchange of ideas with one another in the real world as the
basis and the source of consciousness into a unified process of semiotics with agents,
objects and power that come from the material and social world, and it can only be
understood from its own world. Hodge and Kress have given the definition of social
semiotics as follows:
Social semiotics is primarily concerned with human semiosis as an inherently social
phenomenon in its sources, functions, contexts and effects. It is also concerned with the social
forms, through semiotic texts and semiotic practices, in all kinds of human society at all
periods of human history (Hodge, Robert and Kress,1988: 261).
The term of semiotic text in this sense contains a broader meaning, that all kinds of
signs are the vehicle of social activities. Manning shows comprehensively that social
semiotics considers as a social life, a structure of the group, belief/religion, and
cultural practices. The meaning of social relations is analogous to the structure of the
language, hence all human communication actions could be seen as a sign or text,
that should be read first in order to understand the meaning (Manning and Cullum-
Swan, 2009: 617). The firm and straight statement expressed by Gottdiener and
Lagopoulos (1986) that social semiotics is a materialistic analysis of the ideology in
everyday life (Randviir and Cobley, 2010).

1.1. The Distinguishing Aspects to General Semiotics

Some definitions above clearly express a complexity of the social semiotic study that
covers all types of human communication actions in certain communities. This is
how it differs from general semiotics. The cause of this differences, in Thibauld’s
words, there is a spirit of social semiotics to intervene in general semiotics, both in
theoretical and practical aspects of meaning (Thibault, 1991: 6). Some of the
distinguishing aspects include: mindset, focus of study, the perspective on signs, and
the scope of analysis.

Mindset
Vannini observes the mindset of general semiotics emphasizes to the important role
of the structure; general semiotics believe the interrelation of semiotic system
depends on codes or rules which order a convention of meanings in a family system,
etiquette, mathematics, or arts. He also reveals a loyalty of general semiotics to the
structures, not in understanding the way people produce, consume, and negotiate the
rule of semiotics (2007: 114-120). Therefore a mindset of general semiotics
accentuates the structures, then it is called structural semiotics. Social semiotics, on
the contrary, is refusing all preferences of the structures, and positioning the semiotic
as a site of social statuses.

Focus of Study
According to Van Leeuwen (2005: xi), general semiotics focus on the signs, whereas
the focus of social semiotics changes to the way people use semiotic resources, either
to produce objects and communicative events, or to interpret it, which is also as a
form of semiotic production in particular situation and social practices. This
statement is in line with Thibauld, that social semiotics focus on the material aspects

82
 Indro Moerdisuroso. Social Semiotics and Visual Grammar

of the dialectical linkages of the relationships pattern in textual meaning, as well as

its use in certain domains of social practices (1991: 7).
As for the specifications or specific domains of social practice, Hodge and Kress
have confirmed that semiotics in social practices not only connect the power to the
meaning, but also refers to the meaning of the power (1088: 2). Within a place as like
a market where the transaction happens, there are power stratification and dynamics
interplay between the producer, distributor or dealer, and consumer of ideology,
including its practical uses. Powerful producers are able to create meanings and the
rules, and conditioning in order to be absorbed by the consumers. In this mechanism,
social semiotics focuses on study signs to the formation process of producer regime,
competition for power, use practices, and their effects on consumer’s regime and
social life in general. This explanation is in line with Manning (1977/2009: 618) that
is the power and authorities do stabilize the expression and enforce concreteness a
meaning of sign in the culture. So, in the social semiotics frame, material reality of
the sign is always analysed its signified, concept or connotations based on
ideological systems in daily practices of a particular group of people, while the
general semiotics analyse on the signs itself.

The Perspective of The Signs

Sign is seen by general semiotics as a structured entity that each part and its
interrelations must be scrutinized in order to find its meaning. Social semiotics views
the signs in a different perspective, which according to van Leeuwen (2005: 3), as a
kind of code or a vehicle, whose presence depends on the specific resources. He
based his view on Halliday (1978) that the grammar in the language system is not a
code, not a set of rules to construct sentences correctly, but rather a "resource for
making meaning".
Van Leeuwen defines the semiotics resources as all acts and artifacts used to
communicate, both physiologically produced -with vocals and muscles instruments
to make a facial expression- or technological way -with pen, ink and paper, computer
software, clothes, scissors and others. Traditionally all these are so-called 'signs'.
These are objects and actions that can be observed and that have been drawn into the
domain of social communication. So the perspective in social semiotics is not on the
sign as a semiotic object, but on various objects and events that become semiotic
resources.

The Scope of Analysis

The development of social semiotics is not merely an extension of the scope of
structural semiotics, but as stated Thibauld, is a social intervention to semiotics that
considered too static and narrow angles. Furthermore, Hodge and Kress even place a
Saussure's scope of analysis as antiguide, which constructs the scope of social
semiotic analysis by against the scope of structural semiotics as Saussure suggested
(1988: 18). So, social semiotics negates structural semiotics scope by turning its
scope to be a limit to social semiotics as shown in the following table.

83
IJCAS: Vol. 1, Number 1 June 2014

Structural Semiotics Social Semiotics

Signs Culture, communities, and politics
as intrinsic semiotics
Linguistics Other semiotic systems beside oral
languages
Langue Parole, speaking acts, and
signifying real practices in various
codes
Synchronic Diachronic, time, history, and its
process of change
Structure of signs Material characteristics of signs
Table 1: Comparison of scope of analysis (Hodge and Kress, 1988)

In relation with these differences, contend Vannini, social semiotics study have to
recognize the dynamics of power, ranging from research design through publication
and its reception, as well as utilize the research results. For this reason, social
semiotics analyses have to ensure reflexivity that informs various aspects of the
dynamics of power associated with the semiotic process. With this reflexivity it does
not just mean the ideological dialectic can be read explicitly, but also the specific
nature and polyvocal process (inclusion of many voices and points of view as well as
excavation and retrieval of oppressed knowledge as a form of resistance against the
dominant discourse and knowledge, Bakhtin, 1981) can be revealed as the
uniqueness and validity of social semiotics (Vannini, 2007).

1.2. Key elements

The subject of semiotics, both general and social is the message. It is realized as a
sign or text, that is a structure or message trace is perceived, which is ascribed to a
particular social group. Text is a material realization of the message, as a product of
the semiotic system and as a historical document of the constitution. While the
general semiotic view text as a fixed entity, social semiotics highlight on dialectical
struggle between text and its semiotic systems, which always presents a specific
semiotic action, namely discourse. Departing from the discourse, it can be traced
other key elements of social semiotics in details: genre and style.

Discourse
The term discourse derives from the French discours; it means speech. At first, this
term is used in the linguistics field. But since it evolved into various branches of the
social sciences and humanities, then there is a diversity of meanings within the scope
of their respective disciplines. The use of this term in social semiotics is based on
Foucault (1976: 83):
In the most general and vaguest way, discourse denoted a group of verbal
performances; and by discourse, then, I meant that which was produced (perhaps all
that was produced) by the groups of signs. But I also meant a group of acts of
formulation, a series of sentences or propositions. Lastly — and it is this meaning that
was finally used (together with the first, which served in a provisional capacity) —
discourse is constituted by a group of sequences of signs, in so far as they are
statements, that is, in so far as they can be assigned particular modalities of existence.

84
 Indro Moerdisuroso. Social Semiotics and Visual Grammar

Van Leeuwen defines discourse as a social construction of knowledge of some

aspects of reality (2005: 93). By means that the discourse is developed in a particular
social context, and in a consistent way with the interests of the executants; either in a
large context such as multinational corporations, or small context such as certain
family; also in the context of formal institutions such as the press and schools, as
well as informal context like a conversation in a restaurant.

Genre
The term genre is generally interpreted as a text in any code that has a particularity
due to follow certain rules to produce a distinctive type. This term can be equated
with the type, stream, or a school of thought. Text could be typical when it has
characteristics that can also be recognized in other similar texts. The reason is,
people produce a certain text because of its willingness to follows the rules; it is a
kind of recipes, traditions, customs, or a model that has been adhered to generations.
Since each rule has implications for distinction with other rules, then any text that is
made under a rule would reflect the genre espoused. Genre can help a person to build
or strengthen the meaning of the text, to construct knowledge, identify the agents of
the text and set the audience characteristics.

Van Leeuwen explains there are three aspects of the construct of a genre, namely:
characteristics of content, characteristics of the form and characteristics of the
function. The content refers to the similarities characteristics of subject matter in the
discourse, rather than a discussion of the matter itself, for a discussion of a matter is
the domain of discourse. The form is seen from the similarities of the structure, and
sequence or relation between elements contained in the content. And the function
reveals from the sameness of usability in related discourse. Genre in social semiotics
among other things: sociolinguistics, pragmatism, ideology, feminism, and gender.

Based on these characteristics seem that there is a variety of genres in particular

discourse. Every genre is the material manifestation of the message, and can be
identified by the characteristic equation, both the content, form, and function. The
role of genre then is as semiotic resources that have been classified, or as a template
of communicative activity.

Style
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines style as a particular manner or technique by
which something is done, created, or performed. Van Leeuwen categorizes the style
to three kinds: individual style, social style, and lifestyle. He explains that the idea of
individual style foregrounds individual differences. There are spaces for individual
particularities although the way everybody acts usually regulated by social standard.
And the idea of social style express is not only someone personality and attitudes,
but also their social status, ‘who we are’, in a stable category such as economic class,
age, gender, social relationships, and ‘what we do’ in terms of someone's
involvement in socially regulated activities and the role he/she played within them.

Lifestyle in Merriam-Webster Dictionary is described as a particular way of living:

the way a person lives or a group of people live; this description combines both

85
IJCAS: Vol. 1, Number 1 June 2014

individual and personal style. According to van Leeuwen, lifestyle is more socially
than individually orientation. He argues that the existence of social or communal
style spread across the cities of the world is characterized not by the established
individual position, but by shared consumers behaviour. Besides, lifestyle is also
social as marked by many appearances, which is almost every 'distinctive way of life'
that can be expressed in fashion and accessory styles, culinary tastes, type of
communication tools, type of vehicles, sort of sport activities, and so on. Lifestyle is
another social because of the role it plays in the marketing sector, when traditionally
social indicators such as class, gender, age, education have been replaced by the
‘lifestyle market segmentation’ technique which classify consumers through a
combination of consumption patterns and attitudes.

1.3. Analyzing Principles

The principles of analysis in social semiotic need to be placed in the research
paradigm. Paradigm in research is defined as the basic belief system or worldview
that guides researchers in selecting and determining the fundamental ways,
ontological and epistemological. Worldview that has received by the researchers so
far consists of four paradigms: positivism, post positivism, critical theory, and
constructivism. With regard to critical theory, this refers to some alternative
paradigm, in which among others include: neo-Marxism, feminism, and materialism.
This paradigm is divided into three trends: postmodernism, post structuralism, and a
mixture of both. The study of social semiotics which has several characteristics,
among others: based on Marxian view, the denial of the structure, and his interested
in the discourse of the oppressed, show a strong tendency to be in the post structural
critical paradigm.

Referring to Guba and Yvonna (1997/2006: 129-136), ontologically, critical theory’s

view to the reality is liquid, and shaped time after time by series of social, political,
cultural, economic, gender, ethnic, factors that then crystallize into a 'real' structure.
Meanwhile, epistemologically, researcher and subject of research are interactively
related with researcher values and other people who latch to affect research.
Therefore, the results of the study are mediated by an attitude that does not get the
differences between ontology and epistemology, because these both are interwoven
with the interaction between the researcher with a particular object or group.
Methodologically, this paradigm characterized by dialogue of researcher and
research subject, which should be a dialectical dialogue, in order to change the
ignorance and misunderstanding into a discourse based on a deeper awareness. In the
critical paradigm, the role of researcher’s view seems clearly important. Researcher
does not isolate an object of study from any other influences such as positivism
thought. There are very wide space for researcher to interact with various
components that could be related to object of study to generate values, discourse,
consciousness, and a new reality. Match to such analysis principle, there is a visual
text analysis model called visual grammar.

2. Visual grammar
Kress and van Leeuwen base visual grammar on Halliday’s theoretical idea of
metafunctions:

86
 Indro Moerdisuroso. Social Semiotics and Visual Grammar

Every semiotic fulfills both ‘ideational’ function, a function of representing ‘the

world around and inside us’ and ‘interpersonal’ function, a function of enacting
social interactions as social relations. All message entities – texts – also attempt to
present a coherent ‘world of the text’, what Halliday calls the ‘textual’ function – a
world in which all the elements of the text cohere internally, and which itself coheres
with its relevant environment (2006: 15).

In visual grammar, structure of visual language is equated with linguistics almost

similarly. Grammar in linguistics describes the combining of words into clauses,
sentences and texts. Likewise, visual grammar explains the procedure to combine
visual elements -people, places, and objects- in visual statement in a certain
complexity and extension. Just as the structure of linguistic, visual structure refers to
the specific interpretation of the experience of form and social interaction.
Furthermore Kress and Leeuwen stated that:
‘What is our visual grammar a grammar of?’ First of all we would say that it
describes a social resource of a particular group, its explicit and implicit knowledge
about this resource, and its uses in the practices of that group. Then, second, we
would say that it is a quite general grammar, because we need a term that can
encompass oil painting as well as magazine layout, the comic strip as well as the
scientific diagram. [...], an account of the explicit and implicit knowledge and
practices around a resource, consisting of the elements and rules underlying a
culture-specific form of visual communication (2006: 3).

Kress and Leeuwen stated that approach of visual grammar starts from the social
aspect. It structure is not a simple reproduction of the structure of reality, but instead,
producing a reality picture bonded to the interests of the social community that
produces an image, circulate, and read it, so it becomes ideological. Meaning
expressed by printmakers, photographers, designers, painters and sculptors in first
and foremost are the social meanings. To explore these meanings, there are aspects
and rules of visual grammar that have to be analysed: elements and structure,
position of the participants, modality, composition, and materiality.

2.1. Elements and Structure

Knowledge of visual grammar consists of the elements, structures and rules that
underlie specific cultural forms of visual communication. Visual elements are called
the participants. Every visual text includes two main participants: drawn-participants
(all humans, events, objects, and other forms appear in the image), and interactive
participants (image-makers and image-viewers). Image-maker is a person or group
who creates the image; and image-viewer is a person or community who uses the
image. Each participant, whether potential or actual become semiotic resource are
related to each other, either realistic or virtual, and formulated on its social meaning.
All participants are connected or not connected to form a variety of relationships,
structures, and interaction processes in two possible forms of representation
structures: narrative and conceptual.

Narrative Representation Structure (NRS) presents the ongoing actions and events.
Similar to the structure of a sentence that contains the elements of subject-verb-
object, a subject in NRS called actor, and objects called goal. In visual text, actor can

87
IJCAS: Vol. 1, Number 1 June 2014

be a living creature, object, or other objects that are characterized prominent than the
other, either by position, size, color sharpness and contour sharpness. A verb is
synonym to the sort of action, or the events experienced, or relations between actors
to goal, and called transaction.

The conceptual representation structure is a relationship between participants in a

particular class, statically, and timeless. This structure can be understood as a process
of classification or taxonomy, such as the sequence or chain related to participants to
interact; at least one set of participants will act as a subordinate associated with at
least one other participant as a superordinate.

2.2. Position of participants

The position of the participants in visual grammar is a combination of relationships
among participants in the picture, also with interactive participants. Interactive
participants are real people who produce and understand the images in social
community context that regulates what the picture may 'say', how it should be said,
and how it should be interpreted, to some degrees and in different ways. Some terms
are demand-offer relation, social distance, horizontal line, vertical angle.

2.3. Modality
The term modality comes from linguistic field, referring to a value of the truth or
credibility of statements attributed to the facts. Modality in verbal language
expressed in words such as: believe me, most likely, perhaps, actually. Linguistic
resources of modality have a very important role in society. This source allows
people to make the necessary truth together, to be able to form groups that believe
the same things, so it can act together in one world integrally and effectively. In the
same way also allows one to deny the truth of other people, with all the potential
consequences owned, from exile someone from the group to the wars of religion and
ideology. However, something that considered being true in visual grammar is not
associated with the absolute truth. Truth in modality is a limited sense in answer to
the question 'how true something is revealed?'

Visual modality can depict people, places, and other things that look real, like really
exist, or as if the imagination, fantasy, caricature. Rating of modality is a social,
depending on what is considered to be real (or true, sacred) in social groups
particularly targeted by the representation. High modality means closer to reality,
and as opposed to leave away. This can be set from the depths of the parts, contrast,
color saturation and intensity, as well as sharpening-blurring background.

3.4. Composition
The composition is the arrangement of all 'drawn participants' elements as a whole.
The meaning of composition is interpreted through three interrelated systems:
information value, salience, and framing. System of value information is a placement
of elements in image zones that reflect the values of specific information. Division of
left and right side, based on the habit of writing, means that the left side is an area

88
 Indro Moerdisuroso. Social Semiotics and Visual Grammar

of written information, already happened, oriented to the past, certain things (called
given), and the right area is a place to be inscribed, expected to occur, oriented to the
future, uncertain things (called new). Based on philosophical relations, the topside
reflects ideal things, and the bottom side is close to reality. In division of center-
edge, related to the social aspect, the center area reflects a source or mediator of the
edges or marginal (called margin).

System of salience is the arrangement of elements in the 'drawn participants', made

to guide an attention of viewers in different degrees, such as: placement in the
foreground or background, relative sizes, contrast tonal value (or color), the
difference in sharpness. Salience determines a hierarchy among participants on the
overall picture. By considering location of the most prominent participants, it can be
set such ‘given’ is more important than ‘new’, or vice versa. So as ‘ideal’ is more
prominent than ‘real’ and vice versa, and also to the center-margin relations.

System of framing associated with the presence or absence of a boundary line. It is

realized by the elements that create a dividing line, real or imaginary, or by the actual
frame line, that disconnects or connects the elements of the picture. Framing in
image indicates contextually co or private ownership. System of framing detect
element or group of elements that are sometimes disconnected, decompose each
other, or one element connected to some other elements, and all elements joined
together. Problem in system of framing is a matter of degree: elements in the
composition may be strongly or weakly framed; the stronger the framing of an
element, the more it is presented as a separate unit of information. The more the
elements of the spatial composition are connected, the more they are presented as
belonging together, as a single unit of information.

2.5. Materiality
Various terms related to the material aspects in visual grammar is called production.
Aspects of materiality, though is given things, but it is an important part to produce a
meaning. Gold or bronze, original oil painting or reproduction, and any material
brought meaning, include social significance. Each type of medium states a selection
of ideational, interpersonal and textual function in the significance system.
Materiality focuses on color meanings analysis related to Halliday’s metafunction.

In the ideational function, color clearly can be used to denote people, places and
things as well as classes of people, places and things, and more general ideas, such as
the colors of flag, corporate identity, safety codes, sign systems, maps. Color is also
used to convey ‘interpersonal’ meaning: to impress or intimidate, to warn against
obstructions and other hazards. It used by people to present themselves and the
values they stand for, to say in the context of specific social situations. Color also
functions at the textual level. Color can be used to create coherence in texts.
Textbooks make wide use of this, whether in ‘reading schemes’ or in mathematics
texts to indicate ‘levels’ of difficulty, or in science textbooks to provide topical unity.
The whole procedure of visual grammar analysis in social semiotics meanings is
illustrated in the graphic as follows after the conclusion.

89
IJCAS: Vol. 1, Number 1 June 2014

CONCLUSION
The social semiotics provide the visual text a vital role, as one of the material form
of ideology, which is produced circulated, consumed, and contested, both in large
and small scale, or formal and informal environments in certain communities. This
role allows researcher to place the term of ideology not only as a product in the
political practices, but also as the semiotic resources that is moving dynamically in
the market of meaning-making in all aspects of culture.

One model of social semiotic analysis of visual text is the visual grammar, an
account of the explicit and implicit knowledge and practices around a resource,
consisting of the elements and rules underlying a culture-specific form of visual
communication. The aspects analysed consist of: elements and structure, position of
the participants, modalities, composition, and materiality. Researcher can develop
this analyses in a wider framework surpassed the limitations of structural semiotics,
by involving directly into the semiotic resources around knowledge and cultural
practices in everyday life. As a study which is situated in critical paradigm, there are
very wide spaces for researcher to interact with various visual semiotic resources that
can be related each other to generate values, discourses, and a new way of seeing in a
more inclusive consciousness.

Semiotic resources

Meaning-producer

rules

writings images

sounds events

utterances & acts

Meaning-consumer

Visual grammar analysis

Elements and structure

Position of participants Style
Modality and
Composition genre
Materiality

Discourse/social meanings

Graphic Procedure of analysis

90
 Indro Moerdisuroso. Social Semiotics and Visual Grammar

REFERENCES
Foucault, Michel. (1976). Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Harper & Row
Publisher.
Guba, Egon G. and Yvonna S. Lincoln. (2009). Berbagai Paradigma yang Bersaing
dalam Penelitian Kualitatif. In Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln
(eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Dariyatno, Badrus Samsul Fata,
Abi, John Rinaldi (trans.). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar. Original work
published in 1997.
Hodge, Robert and Gunther Kress. (1988). Social Semiotics. New York: Cornell
University Press.
Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen. (2006). Reading Images, The Grammar of
Visual Design. Taylor & Francis e-library, p. 15. First edition published in
1996. Available at http://www.tandefbooks.com
Manning, Peter K. and Betsy Cullum-Swan. (2009) Analisis Naratif, Analisis
Konten, dan Analisis Semiotik. In Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln
(eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Dariyatno, Badrus Samsul Fata,
Abi, John Rinaldi (trans.). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar. Original work
published in 1997.
Randviir, Anti, & Paul Cobley. (2010). Sociosemiotics. In Paul Cobley (ed.). The
Routledge Companion to Semiotics. New York–Canada: Routledge.
Thibault, Paul J. (1991). Social Semiotics As Praxis: Text, Social Meaning Making,
and Nabokov’s Ada. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Van Leeuwen, Theo. (2005). Introduction to Social Semiotics. New York:
Routledge.

ONLINE RESOURCES
Hjorland, Birger and Jeppe Nicolaisen. (2007). Semiotics and social semiotics. In
Epistemology and Philosophy of Science for Information Scientists Journal, p.
1. Retrieved from http://www.iva.dk/jni/
lifeboat_old/Positions/Semiotics_&_Social_ semiotics.htm
Hodge, Bob. (n.d.). Social Semiotics. Semiotic Encyclopedia Online, E.J. Pratt
Library Victoria University. Retrieved from http://www.
semioticon.com/seo/S/ social_ semiotics.html.
Vaninni, Phillip. (January 2007). Social Semiotic Framework, Method and Analysis.
In Qualitative Inquiry Journal Vol. 13 No. 1. Royal Roads University, Victoria,
Canada. Sage Publication 2007, pp. 114-120, Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/1534032/Social_ Semiotics_and_Fieldwork_
Method_ and_ Analytics

91

View publication stats